Intake procedure in social assistance administration : a study of the casework implications of intake, based on four comparative intake procedures in social service settings and the City Social Service Department of Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study involves a definition of sound intake procedure and an analysis of the presently established intake procedure in the Vancouver City Social Service Department. The focus of the enquiry is the effectiveness of the intake procedure in meeting the needs of clients who make application for social assistance. The effectiveness is measured in terms of study, diagnosis, and treatment, and the need for skilled case handling at the first point of contact between agency and applicant. Five types of intake cases are distinguished and illustrated. The referral process is studied as a secondary focus, three types of referral being distinguished. Material for the study was gathered from current texts and articles on comparative intake procedures, interviews with the administrator, unit directors and workers of the City Social Service Department, interviews with the directors of hospital and T.B. social service departments, and by the analysis of representative and illustrative case material. This study substantiates the belief that casework can and should be done in a public welfare programme. It also shows through case analysis that casework is required at the intake level, and the success of intake procedure depends upon the employ of skilled and qualified social caseworkers. Other matters determining the success of intake procedure are suitable office environment for the public, adequate stenographic aid for the social workers, skilled use of interviewing time, and sound referral process. Many problems exist which prevent maximum service to clients. Solutions to these problems are possible without major change in the administration, structure, or budget, and are implications for policy change. The study finally indicates the need for more adequate interpretation of policy change to the city council and to the community if the public assistance programme is to enjoy public sympathy and understanding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".